It has been bugging me for a while now, and I am far from a blind homer.

How does a guy consistently get better to the point where you cannot even imagine what his top level is? "Elite" quarterbacks peak where Aaron Rodgers started at (28-13, 4000+)

Just considering how good he can be is scary, in a good way. Barring injury, he WILL be one of the best, if not the best of all time.

I have never felt more expectation from a ball player than watching Aaron Rodgers, especially on 3rd down/redzone situations. It's kind of annoying as a fan (in a good way, strangely) - feeling that any down he could throw a TD or make something fantastic happen.

I remember watching games with my step dad and hed be all excited to see the packers moving down the field or having a big play then next thing you knew was brent would throw one of his wild balls and it would get picked off and my step dad would be saying "F$%^! F$%!"

that was brent - a Great QB but like you said vince ... an int was just around the corner.

I like the cojones. He certainly has all the tools to become one of the all-time greats. He's also got an offense around him that can be scary good. I don't think we are that far off from seeing just how good he will be.

From my recollection of Favre's early career (overlooking the fact I was not quite 4 when he won the starting job against the Bengals), it seems to me we really knew what we had in Favre by the '95 season. At that point there would have been some questions (beat Dallas or win the Super Bowl, vicodin thing if that had come out yet). But I don't think many would have thought it absurd to predict Favre heading to the Hall of Fame.

I know at this point Rodgers only has started two years and has not won a playoff game or an MVP yet like Favre did through his fourth season in '95. But we saw what was arguably the greatest second half performance from a qb in playoff history and he was in the category of honorable mention last year for MVP in just his 2nd year starting. Good things are coming this year and I think we'll have more people echoing RP's ballsy prediction by the end of this season.

Also the same people that feel this way about Favre, do you also feel that the Colts would have more SBs if it wasn't for Manning? No, probably not, because Manning elevated the Colts to that level, just as Favre did IMO. I don't think those Packers teams were particularly great. He never had HOF WRs or HOF RBs and the D's were decent but not great.

It evens out IMO. May be the Packers win a few more SBs if Favre isn't Favre but may be Favre wins a few more SBs if the Packers had better Ds or better RBs/WRs.

Overall, I think he elevated the Packers to contenders and gave us 17 years of only ONE losing season. And we won a SB. What else do people want.

Also the same people that feel this way about Favre, do you also feel that the Colts would have more SBs if it wasn't for Manning? No, probably not, because Manning elevated the Colts to that level, just as Favre did IMO. I don't think those Packers teams were particularly great. He never had HOF WRs or HOF RBs and the D's were decent but not great.

It evens out IMO. May be the Packers win a few more SBs if Favre isn't Favre but may be Favre wins a few more SBs if the Packers had better Ds or better RBs/WRs.

Overall, I think he elevated the Packers to contenders and gave us 17 years of only ONE losing season. And we won a SB. What else do people want.

I don't get how people put Manning above Favre. Seriously, I don't. Manning blows big games just as much as Favre does. Manning's got a 9-9 record in the Playoffs. Favre 11-9. Manning throws bad INTs in big games just like Favre does.

On the plus side, both consistently produce. Now if you look at history though, Favre had one Hall of Fame caliber WR in Sterling Sharpe up until the end of '94. Manning had arguably the best possession WR to ever play the game (Jerry Rice was more dynamic and a better WR, but a straight up possession WR, I'd take Harrison).

Manning also had better OLs his entire career. Favre took some hits that would have ENDED Manning's career. Look at the sack totals. Manning generally leaves a game with his uniform still clean (other than sweat).

Favre also is tough to sack. He's been one of the harder QBs I've ever seen at being brought down, despite the fact that neither of them are that quick. I think if my Grandma raced them in the 100-yard dash, it would be my Grandma, then Favre, then Manning.

By the way, why are we talking about Favre in a Rodgers thread again? I hope I didn't cause this.

I sincerely hope Rodgers has more SB wins than both of them combined so this thread can die once and for all.

Also the same people that feel this way about Favre, do you also feel that the Colts would have more SBs if it wasn't for Manning? No, probably not, because Manning elevated the Colts to that level, just as Favre did IMO. I don't think those Packers teams were particularly great. He never had HOF WRs or HOF RBs and the D's were decent but not great.

It evens out IMO. May be the Packers win a few more SBs if Favre isn't Favre but may be Favre wins a few more SBs if the Packers had better Ds or better RBs/WRs.

Overall, I think he elevated the Packers to contenders and gave us 17 years of only ONE losing season. And we won a SB. What else do people want.

I think people wanted Favre to be held more accountable at crucial times in particularly crucial game. Before the nasty divorce from Green Bay -- almost to a person -- the feelings towards Favre came from a place of adoration. That said, starting with the playoffs in '98 up until the near-miracle run in '07, Favre had a way of playing downright awful in the playoffs. For many of those years Favre's surrounding offensive cast was average to above-average. Favre did indeed elevate Green Bay's position. However, the NFC Central/North was largely uncompetitive throughout those years (exceptions exist, I know).

Favre's legendary status was firmly in place by the earlier part of the previous decade. If Green Bay was in a advantageous position going into the postseason, Favre's gritty performances were the cause. BUT that didn't buy him a pass to be foolish with the ball in the playoffs. And there are plenty of examples of Favre trying to force things, trying to seemingly win games on his own. It was great that he played a huge role in getting the team to that point. It wasn't great that there didn't seem to be much accountability at the crucial point. How many times have you heard him say, "I was just trying to make a play." We get it Brett. But maybe work the check-down. Hell, throw it away once in a while.

He's a quarterback. He gets too much credit; at times he gets too much blame. He shoudl be considered one of the best guys to take you there, but the only time he finished the deed he had arguably the NFL's best defense AND special teams.

I personally think that the surrounding talent in Minnie is just about as good as he's ever had. That's why it wouldn't surprise me in the least if the Vikes make a run this year. Ahman Green was very good at his best, but he's no AP.

What if we had a defense that could stop a 4th and 27 against the Eagles?! 4th and 27! Not 4th and 15, not 4th and 20, a 4th and 27. Don't you think we would have likely won that game if we had stopped a 4th and 27.

You're right, the defense screwed up massively on that one play. It's not like they hadn't done their level best to keep the Packers in the game up to that point. Remember, they only sacked McNabb 8 times in that game, limiting him to 248 passing yards. Surely they could have done better.

And surely the ground attack was a massive disappointment in that game too, grinding out a mere 210 yards at a lowly 5.7 YPA.

Without a doubt, it was Favre's scintillating 53.6% completion percentage, 180 passing yards, and 2 TDs that kept them in that game.

As for the Atlanta game, Atlanta churned out a grand total of 248 yards of offense, of which 117 yards was passing by Vick and another 64 were Vick's rushing yards. They held Warrick Dunn to 64 yards. That does not sound like a defensive collapse to me. In fact, it looks like a solid defensive performance to me.

I don't see how this defeat can be laid at the feet of the defense either.

I also recently watched the Packers/Rams playoff game, in which Favre threw 6 interceptions. What struck me was how the Packers had the Rams on their heels almost the entire game. Though Favre apologists like to say the Packers never had a chance in that game, it simply isn't true. Were it not for the insane number of turnovers (it could have easily been 9 turnovers were it not for a couple of really bad calls by the officials), the Packers probably would have destroyed the Rams in that game. Kurt Warner looked simply awful more often than not during the game, and the Packers defense had him on the ground repeatedly. It was not the defense that lost that game either.

As for the Super Bowl XXXII, I never got to watch that game (parents wouldn't let me watch football). However, while it's true that Terrell Davis gashed the Packers for over 150 yards, you forget that the Packers' defense held John Elway to 12 of 22 for 123 yards with no TDs and 1 INT (51.9 rating). So while Favre certainly performed well in that game, it's not like the game represented a monumental defensive collapse either.

NSD, I cannot seriously debate this with you. You clearly have hate on for Favre. Your whole post is not objective at all.

You didn't even watch Super Bowl XXXII. Do you realize the Packers were 11 point favorites. 11 Points. And that D gave up 31 points. TD broke the record for most TDs by a RB I am pretty sure. And in a game where he suffered a massive migrane where he couldn't even see straight.

Did you honestly watch the Falcons game or did you just look at the Box Score like Super Bowl XXXII?

4-2-ATL 2 (6:37) A.Green up the middle to ATL 6 for -4 yards (E.Johnson). Yes that great A. Green, stopped at 4th and goal.

Then Vick leads a 90 yard drive from his own 5 yards for a FG. Which eats up 7 minutes of the 2nd quarter.

24-0 at half.

How much of that First Half do you put on Favre? He had one INT and that lead to no points. If you think that GB team was any near SB calibar to be down 24-0 to Vick at home, I don't know what to tell you.

At the point of Favre's 2nd INT, it was in the 4th quarter, when they were already down 31-7, and that didn't even lead to points - Btw, Longwell missed ANOTHER FG.

THAT TEAM SUCKED, you can't look at Box Scores, you have to watch the games. To lose at home to MICHAEL F'N VICK. These are these myths people make up in their mind that somehow these Packers teams were better than actually were. They were not.

Favre took a lot of these medicore teams and made them great by turning bum RBs and bum WRs into decent players. Yes, I guess you can blame him for not carrying these teams even further, but how many QBs honestly carried a crappy team to a SB? Seriously, I can't even think of one.

And anytime your D cannot stop a 4th and 27, is a joke. If your premise is that the QB has to be great in every game, thats not the case. LOTS of QBs have won SB with their D winning them a game - Saints/Vikings, the D won them that game the fumbles and INTs. The Saints O had hardly any yards against the Vikings. Is Brees SB any less sweet because he needed the D to bail him out, NO. Big f'n deal, I expect our D to stop a 4th and 27 and win us the game. Big deal. I bet if you go back in playoff history ,every team that won the SB, probably needed at some point for their D to make up for the O.

If your premise is that Favre is expected to put the team on his back every game (e.g., Seahawks v. Packers 2007), then he's not that good and you are bound be disappointed in Rodgers too. Overall, Favre is part of the blame in any loss but I really don't understand this myth that these Packers teams were so great and they would have won if Favre didn't screw them over.

I don't get how people put Manning above Favre. Seriously, I don't. Manning blows big games just as much as Favre does. Manning's got a 9-9 record in the Playoffs. Favre 11-9. Manning throws bad INTs in big games just like Favre does..

Not to mention he plays in a Dome a minimum of 10 games a regular season.

I like how you glided right over the fact that they sacked McNabb 8 times in that game and our running game had over 200 yards. Yes, I watched that game and yes, I watched the Atlanta game too, And I have watched the Rams game repeatedly. If it will make you feel better, I'll watch the other two games a few times and come back with analysis of them.

But this is way off topic. We're supposed to be talking Rodgers here.

I didn't bring up Favre so don't blame me. But honestly, how much of that 24-0 at half do you attribute to Favre when Vick ate up the clock on two long drives. Plus Longwell missed a FG and they got stopped at the Goal Line.

Then second half, I think Packers came out and scored a TD to make it 24-7 and then the Falcons put together another drive right away to answer to 31-7.

I just don't believe that these Packers teams were that good. Compare the Rams O to the Packers O that year minus Warner and Favre. And you will see why the whole house of cards depends on Favre.

I could have sworn the final score was 27-7, so I'm not sure how to answer your points.

I've said many times on this forum and elsewhere that the teams of that era were not all that great. I've said repeatedly that they feasted on extremely weak NFL Central and North Divisions. I've pointed out that Favre came out of many a regular season looking much better than he otherwise might have because the Packers' divisions were so pathetic. I've also said that I want to see a strong NFC North division. I want to be proud of this team when it makes the playoffs, not feel like they stomped on a bunch of pansies. I think this will be one of the stronger divisions we've seen in quite a few years, and I'm excited for that. I'd love to see three NFC North teams make it to the playoffs and two teams from this division in the NFC championship game. I think that would be a better test of this team's mettle.

There's some irony in the fact that you're talking about Favre being great because he pulled "lesser" teams out of the depths of mediocrity, while you harp on Manning because he plays in a dome and doesn't have that great a play-off record.

Let me put it like this. Most Packers teams have been better than most Colts teams in the last decade. Manning makes that team what it is.

Their offenses have been consistently great, while often featuring a mediocre running game and/or O-line and receivers who "come out of nowhere". He made guys like Brandon Stokley. Their defense has been mediocre for ages, sometimes showing up at pivotal times, but often letting the offense play a huge game of catch-up.

And I know, Favre made Antonio Freeman, Favre hasn't always had a great O-line and Favre hasn't always had the running game... But when he did have a crappy team, he usually struggled, trying to make something out of nothing. Forcing things to badly.

And then the intangibles. They don't get much more obvious than with Manning. His study habits, throws under pressure etc.

I could have sworn the final score was 27-7, so I'm not sure how to answer your points.

I've said many times on this forum and elsewhere that the teams of that era were not all that great. I've said repeatedly that they feasted on extremely weak NFL Central and North Divisions. I've pointed out that Favre came out of many a regular season looking much better than he otherwise might have because the Packers' divisions were so pathetic. I've also said that I want to see a strong NFC North division. I want to be proud of this team when it makes the playoffs, not feel like they stomped on a bunch of pansies. I think this will be one of the stronger divisions we've seen in quite a few years, and I'm excited for that. I'd love to see three NFC North teams make it to the playoffs and two teams from this division in the NFC championship game. I think that would be a better test of this team's mettle.

Ok fine, it was a FG, right after the TD, still 27-7 instead of 31-7. But you still have not addressed the 24-0 at half but whatever.

I am not going to argue that those were weaker divisions but if you watched Favre play between seasons 1995 to 1997, you will have watched one of the greatest three seasons by any QB in history.

That's why I laugh out loud when I hear about Packers fans talk about how Rodgers is better right now than Favre ever was [I am not saying you think this, hopefully you don't]. Its a joke, they didn't watch Favre in his prime. They look at statistics and point to this and that. Fact is that its a different era, you have so many QBs with 3,000+ yards, 100+ QB Rating, 30+ TDs, etc. In that era, it was completely different and Favre was hands on the best QB.

Rodgers is VERY good but people cannot blindly take stats from now and compare them to stats of the mid 90's. Favre posted a 107.2 QB Rating last year, its artificial.

I could have sworn the final score was 27-7, so I'm not sure how to answer your points.

.

Rodgers is VERY good but people cannot blindly take stats from now and compare them to stats of the mid 90's. Favre posted a 107.2 QB Rating last year, its artificial.

Favre posted a 107.2 because he was careful with the football. Something he has never done to that extent for the Packers.

The reason I say if Favre played as well as Rodgers, we would have had more super bowls is that when Favre lost in the playoffs, he had poor ratings. He averaged in the mid 60s for the last 12 years he was in Green Bay. Rodgers playoff loss was rated 121. If Favre played that well, we would have had more super bowl wins.

The Giants game, Favre had a poor game before it got to OT. Including a 70 rating and another int.The MN game, Favre had 4 ints and a fumble with a 54 rating against an 8-8 team. Tying a record for losing to the worst playoff team ever.The Philly game Favre was handed a 2 TD lead by the D and YACs, The second score was all runs and 1 dump off to the back, all in the First quarter. Then he was done scoring. He had an incredible 210 yard ground game to back him up and the D had 8 sacks and 2 ints. Favre had a 4th and 1 and got a delay of game penalty to move us back to 4th and 6 so Sherman elected to punt. After all that, is the 4th and 26. It is an out right lie to say he had a bad team around him that he was trying to carry.The St Louis game, Favre TOs led directly to 28 points. They lost by 28 points. 3 ints ran back for TDs and one to the 4. If Favre had not lost the ball over and over, they might have scored at least 3 more. The D actually held the fastest show on turf to 17. Favre scored the rest for them.The '97 super bowl year, the team pulled out a win VS Tampa in spite of Favre having a 58 rating in order to move on in the playoffs.

In all of those games, if Favre had played up to his average rating, they would have won. In even more games, if Favre played up to Rodgers average, they would have been easy wins. In just about every loss, if Favre played up to Rodgers rating in the AZ loss, they would have blown everyone out.

He may have been great in the the regular season, but he failed when the game was on the line, it is win or go home and the ball is in his hands.

Zero, the payoff at the end of my post, the whole point, is that"if Favre played as well as Rodger..." To point out that Rodgers is a great QB. Defending my point that Rodgers would have gotten us more super bowls. My point was questioned and I answered it. Thoroughly.

if you watched Favre play between seasons 1995 to 1997, you will have watched one of the greatest three seasons by any QB in history.

I have stated this repeatedly in the past, as well. It is undeniable, however, that with the exception of last year (and to a lesser extent, 2007), Favre never came close to repeating the success of that three-year run.

I really don't care about Brett Favre one way or the other, any more than I care about the quarterbacks playing for other teams. I only talk about him so much because he is surrounded by such an unreasonable mythos and rabid fan base. If he weren't drooled over by every commentator and sportscaster, I wouldn't feel the need to crusade against the myth that is Favre. After he finally leaves the league for good, I probably will hardly ever mention his name again.

You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.